REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Review of the transitional measures regarding the acquisition of agricultural real estate foreseen in the Accession Treaty 2005
Date: 2010-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, Romania, accession to the European Union, agricultural holding, agricultural land, foreign capital, intra-EU relations, purchase, trade restriction, transitional period (EU)

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.12.2010 
COM(2010) 734 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Review of the transitional measures regarding the acquisition of agricultural real estate 
foreseen in the Accession Treaty 2005 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Review of the transitional measures regarding the acquisition of agricultural real estate 
foreseen in the Accession Treaty 2005 

SUMMARY 
The  Accession  Treaty  signed  in  2005  with  Bulgaria  and  Romania1  establishes  a  transitional 
period of seven years (from 2007 to 2014) allowing these Member States to maintain existing 
restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural and forestry land by natural and legal persons of 
other  EU/EEA  countries.  It  also  stipulates  that,  in  the  third  year  after  accession,  these 
transitional measures should be reviewed by the Commission.2  

The objective of this report is to review these temporary restrictions and their effects in order 
to report on the potential for shortening or terminating the transitional period ahead of the date 
stipulated  in  the  Accession  Treaty.  In  view  of  this  objective,  a  study  was  commissioned  in 
2009. The study and this report conclude that: 

•  There is no total ban on farmland acquisitions in Bulgaria and Romania. Therefore, despite 
temporary  restrictions,  a  considerable  foreign  presence  (in  the  form  of  incorporation  of 
new companies or participation in the resident ones, establishment by EU citizens as self-
employed  farmers  and  renting  agricultural  land)  has  been  accommodated  without  any 
visible shock to the system. In the light of limited access to capital and land fragmentation 
in the two Member States concerned, this foreign investment could even be seen as helping 
to resolve some institutional restraints. Foreign investors' activities may result in a positive 
impact  on  agricultural  reform  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  through  introducing  new 
technologies, providing much-needed capital for  production,  rationalising  the  use of land 
and enhancing land values. 

•  The gap in terms of income and land sales' prices in Bulgaria and Romania as compared to 
the other EU Member States is narrowing over time but is still considerable and well short 
of complete convergence. However, a narrowing of this gap was neither expected nor was 
it seen as a necessary condition for terminating the derogations. 

•  Socio-economic  indicators  for  agricultural  production  are  improving,  and  this  positive 
trend is  expected  to continue.  However, an important  gap between the two new Member 
States and the other EU Member States in terms of productivity and share of agricultural 
employment in total employment still remains. 

Although the period of time covered in preparation of this report is necessarily short, based on 
the  situation  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  as  established  in  the  mid-term  review,  the 
Commission  concludes  that  the  time  limits  for  the  application  of  the  transitional 
restrictive measures on farmland acquisitions should not be shortened. 

At the same time, the Commission underlines the importance for these two Member States to 
put the remainder of the transitional period to good use in fostering the development of the 
agricultural  sector.  In  the  Commission's  opinion,  considering  opening  further  agricultural 
markets  to  foreign  investment  through  moderate  measures  even  before  the  expiry  of  the 

1 
2 

OJ L 157 of 21 June 2005, page 11. 
Article 3.2 of Annexes VI and VII to the Accession Protocol provides: "To this effect, the Commission 
shall  submit  a  report  to  the  Council.  The  Council  may,  acting  unanimously  on  a  proposal  from  the 
Commission, decide to shorten or terminate the transitional period…" 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
transitional period would appear beneficial in promoting the competitiveness of the Bulgarian 
and Romanian agricultural sector. In this regard, certain measures can be recommended to be 
taken on a voluntary basis:  

•  allowing EU foreigners, not established in EU2, to freely acquire a certain amount of the 

country's agricultural area; 

•  allowing  EU  foreigners,  not  established  in  EU2,  to  freely  acquire  a  certain  amount  of 
farmland, up to a specified maximum amount per transaction, possibly combined in each 
transaction  with  a  requirement  for  certain  investments  in  technological  innovation  to  be 
made; 

•  permitting EU foreigners not established in EU2 but renting agricultural properties there to 

freely acquire farm buildings and the land on which they are built. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Review of the transitional measures regarding the acquisition of agricultural real estate 
foreseen in the Accession Treaty 2005 

The  Commission  is  presenting  this  report  to  the  Council  in  accordance  with  the  Protocol 
concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republics of Bulgaria and 
Romania  to  the  European  Union.  The  Protocol  and  its  Annexes  VI  and  VII  contain  the 
conditions  foreseen  for  the  application  of  transitional  measures,  including  the  transitional 
periods  during  which  existing  restrictions  on  the  purchase  of  agricultural  land,  forests  and 
forestry land by nationals and legal persons of other EU/EEA countries may be maintained. 
Both Annexes stipulate that a general review of these transitional measures, in the form of a 
Commission  report  to  the  Council,  should  be  held  in  the  third  year  following  the  date  of 
accession.  
In  the  light  of  this  obligation,  a  consultant3  carried  out  a  study4,  analysing  the  impact  of 
transitional measures on the agricultural sector in Bulgaria and Romania (hereinafter referred 
to as EU2). 

1. Legal basis for the Commission report 
Article 63 TFEU enshrines the fundamental freedom of capital movements5 that encompasses, 
amongst others, a free investment regime for real estate acquisitions6. 

The Accession Treaty signed with Bulgaria and Romania in 2005 foresees that, in derogation 
of the Treaty freedom of capital movements, both new Member States are granted a seven-
year  transitional  period  from  2007  (date  of  accession)  to  2014,  during  which  they  may 
maintain  restrictions  existing  in  their  legislation  at  the  date  of  signature  of  the  Accession 
Treaty with respect to the acquisition of agricultural land, forests and forestry land. 

Article  20  of  the  Protocol  concerning  the  conditions  and  arrangements  for  admission  of  the 
Republics  of  Bulgaria  and  Romania  to  the  European  Union  stipulates  that  the  above-
mentioned transitional measures are to be applied under the conditions laid down in its Annex 
VI (Bulgaria) and Annex VII (Romania). 

The Annexes state that "a general review of these transitional measures shall be held in the 
third  year  following  the  date  of  accession.  To  this  effect,  the  Commission  shall  submit  a 
report  to  the  Council.  The  Council  may,  acting  unanimously  on  a  proposal  from  the 
Commission, decide to shorten or terminate the transitional period…" 

2. The transitional arrangements 

In the accession negotiations, similar concerns to those raised by seven of the ten States that 
joined the EU in 2004, drove Bulgaria and Romania to request a transitional period regarding 
the acquisition of agricultural land by nationals of other EU Member States and legal persons 
formed  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  another  Member  State  which  are  neither  established 

3 
4 

5 

6 

Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). 
"Review  of  the  Transitional  Restrictions  Maintained  by  Bulgaria  and  Romania  with  regard  to  the 
Acquisitions  of  Agricultural  Real  Estate",  hereinafter 
to  as  CEPS  study  2010 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/capital/reports.  
See nomenclature of capital movements set out in Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 
1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5). Although this Directive 
was  repealed by  the  Maastricht  Treaty,  the  nomenclature  is  recognised  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union as having indicative value. 
The 5-year transitional period granted to Bulgaria and Romania with respect to the acquisition of real 
estate for secondary residences is not subject to this report. 

referred 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
nor registered in Romania and Bulgaria7 (hereinafter referred to as EU foreigners). The main 
reason  for  this  request  would  appear  to  be  a  need  to  safeguard  the  socio-economic 
conditions for agricultural activities in the wake of the introduction of the single market 
and  the  transition  to  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  The  transitional  measures  are 
intended to soften the impact of an open market for agricultural real estate in the EU2 
resulting  from  their  relatively  low  level  of  land  purchase  prices  and  farmers'  income 
compared  to  the  rest  of  the  EU  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  EU25).  However,  since 
restrictions  on  foreign  investment  might  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  development  of  the 
agricultural  sector,  and  in  particular  on  its  productivity,  technological  innovation  and 
competitiveness,  Bulgaria  and  Romania  may  only  apply  their  restrictive  provisions  for  a 
transitional period limited to seven years (2007 to 2014).  

3. Objectives of the report 

The Commission’s objective is to review the impact of accession and temporary restrictions 
on  the  agricultural  sector  in  the  EU2.  It  will  also  consider  the  ongoing  relevance  of  the 
concerns that led Bulgaria and Romania to request transitional periods for the free acquisition 
of  agricultural  land.  This  will  enable  the  Commission  to  assess  the  need  to  maintain  the 
transitional measures for the foreseen transitional period and to report on the feasibility for 
shortening or terminating it ahead of 2014, the date stipulated in the Accession Treaty. 
The Commission's assessment was preceded by a CEPS study 2010 containing a survey and 
analysis of the developments that took place in the EU2 since their accession negotiations and 
their comparison with the situation in the EU25. 

4. Methodological approach 

To  understand  the  current  and  future  impact  of  the  land  ownership  restrictions,  the  study 
focused on two questions: (i) to what extent do the restrictions on foreign ownership affect the 
efficiency of land exchanges, land allocation and productivity growth, and (ii) to what extent 
are  the  factors  underlying  the  Bulgarian  and  Romanian  concerns  (that  there  would  be  a 
massive takeover of land by foreigners if the restrictions were not in place) still valid. 

The survey focused on the following main issues: a comparative analysis of EU2 transitional 
restrictions;  other  factors  affecting  the  markets  for  agricultural  land  and  land  transactions; 
how agricultural land markets have developed over recent years, in particular in terms of land 
and rental prices, the development of agricultural income and its degree of convergence with 
the  EU25;  and  an  analysis  of  some  key  indicators  of  agricultural  performance  in  the  EU2 
compared to corresponding EU25 indicators. 

5. Overview of the situation after three years of EU membership 

Foreign ownership restrictions and functioning of the land markets 

The restrictions introduced by Bulgaria and Romania concern foreign (i.e. only non-resident 
farmers  and  legal  entities)  ownership  (but  not  renting)  of  agricultural  land.  Since  the 
restrictions imposed on farmland acquisitions by foreigners in the EU2 are of a limited nature, 
it should be stressed that efficient farmland transactions seem to be impeded also by a variety 
of other factors, for example: (i) constraints and imperfections in capital markets resulting in 
the  inevitable  necessity  for  farmers  to  finance  land  purchases  out  of  own  savings;  (ii)  land 
fragmentation  limiting  the  sales  of  farmland  since  purchasers  are  more  interested  in  buying 
consolidated  areas;  (iii)  high  administrative  costs  connected  to  land  transactions  and 
protection of property rights. 

7 

According to the explicit wording of the Accession Treaty, immediately after accession all the above-
mentioned rules are also directly applicable to EEA nationals and legal entities. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Legal restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land by foreigners applicable in EU2 

The Accession Treaty with Bulgaria and Romania stipulates the possibility to maintain, for a 
transitional  period  of  seven  years  after  accession,  national  rules  according  to  which  EU 
foreigners cannot, generally, acquire agricultural land. However, under certain conditions, EU 
foreigners have been able to acquire agricultural land in EU2 already during the transitional 
period. Furthermore, in both countries EU foreigners may freely rent agricultural land.  

In Bulgaria and Romania, the acquisition of agricultural land by EU foreigners has been 
regulated in a similar way: 

(i)  EU  citizens  who  wish  to  establish  themselves  as  self-employed  farmers  and  acquire 
agricultural  land  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania  are  neither  subject  to  any  restrictions  nor  to  any 
procedures  different  from  those  applicable  to  nationals;  (ii)  Legal  entities  established  in 
Bulgaria or Romania can also freely acquire agricultural land in either State, irrespective of 
the level of foreign participation in their capital. 

These investment possibilities for EU foreigners prove that the restrictions applicable in the 
EU2 are less restrictive than those existing in some of the States that joined the EU in 2004 
and asked for a transitional period on the acquisition  of farmland  (hereinafter referred to as 
the EU7 countries8). The main difference is that Bulgaria and Romania have no restrictions on 
land  acquisitions  by  legal  entities  established  on  their  territory,  regardless  of  the  foreign 
participation  in  the  capital  of  those  entities.  It  should  also  be  underlined  that  Bulgaria  and 
Romania  have  established  less  restrictive  conditions  to  be  met  by  EU  citizens  before 
establishing  themselves  as  self-employed  farmers  and  making  use  of  their  right  to  acquire 
farmland  in  these  countries.  There  is  however  no  official  data  on  foreign  ownership  of 
farmland  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  so  that  the  impact  of  the  restrictions  cannot  be  easily 
estimated. Nevertheless, information collected from various sources by national land experts 
participating in the study9 suggests that there is substantial foreign ownership of agricultural 
real estate in both countries. Acquisition of land by foreign investors was clearly boosted as a 
result of the restitution of land to private owners.  

The legal restrictions governing the acquisition of agricultural land by EU foreigners in 
Bulgaria and Romania illustrate that a strict and total ban on foreign acquisitions is not 
in  place  and  may  therefore  not  be  viewed  as  essential  for  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives pursued by the introduction of the transitional period.  

Foreign direct investments 

An increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) in agriculture would have an important impact 
on  much  needed  access  to  capital,  technology  and  know-how  in  the  sector.  Of  a  total  FDI 
stock in Bulgaria of some € 32 billion by  2008 and some € 43 bil lion by 2007 in Romania, 
FDI that has gone into the agricultural sector in Bulgaria amounts to €166 million and to €280 
million in Romania. Although of relatively minor amounts, these investments, together with 
stimulating  (vertical)  spill-over  effects  coming  from  FDI  in  related  sectors  (e.g.  in  the  food 
sector),  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  enhancement  of  agricultural  productivity  and  land 
value. 

Influence of EU accession on EU2 land markets 

Despite  the  (partial)  restrictions  on  foreign  investment  covering  the  agricultural  sector,  EU 
accession  has  already  positively  influenced  the  development  of  this  sector.  By  stimulating 

8 
9 

These are the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. 
See the explanations and examples proposed in section 4 and section 6 of the CEPS study 2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
foreign investments in the overall economy of the EU2 and by facilitating the growth of the 
financial  sector,  EU  accession  improved  access  to  credit  and  insurance  for  farmers,  which 
resulted in an enhancement of agricultural productivity, an increased demand for land and a 
rise in land values. 

Furthermore, subsidies for EU2 farms connected to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 
although  still  at  a  lower  level  compared  to  the  subsidies  available  to  farms  in  other  EU 
Member States, account for an important part of farmers' income in the EU2. Since most of 
the  subsidies  are  linked  either  to  land  or  to  output,  they  encourage  demand  for  land  and 
stimulate increased productivity.  

Changing land markets in EU2 

The overall size of the land sales market in Bulgaria and Romania is small. In Bulgaria, ca. 
140.000  ha  agricultural  land  was  transacted  through  sales  by  2008.  In  Romania,  farmland 
exchanges through sales amounted to ca. 220.000 ha by 2009. However, in both countries, the 
area transacted through sales for the period 1999 – 2008 increased seven times. Around the 
accession period, sales of land grew in Bulgaria by 45% (in the period 2006 – 2008) and more 
than tripled in Romania (in the period 2005-2009). 

Although the land sales markets seem to develop in a similar way in the EU2, the land rental 
markets  differ  considerably.  Renting  is  much  less  important  in  Romania  than  in  Bulgaria. 
Within the EU27, Romania has the lowest renting share10, although it has increased in recent 
years.  In  Romania,  as  in  other  countries,  land  renting  is  more  important  for  larger  legal 
entities which rent more than one-third of the land they use (36% in 2007). However, in 2007, 
only around 35% of the total agricultural area in Romania was used by corporate farms while 
legal entities in Bulgaria held around 53% of the total farmland. 

The  study  used  national  sources  to  obtain  statistics  for  land  sales  and  rental  prices.  After 
accession  the  overall  rental  prices  increased  only  moderately11.  By  contrast,  in  the  years 
around and after accession, the increase in the land sales prices was considerable.  

In  the  pre-accession  period  (2004-2006),  land  sales  prices  in  Bulgaria  grew  by  24%  (to  the 
level of 895 €/ha). After accession, land sales pr ices in Bulgaria increased by 34% compared 
to the pre-accession period and reached, in 2007-2008, a level of 1202 €/ha. In Romania, in 
the  pre-accession  period  (2004-2005),  land  sales  prices  increased  by  more  than  200%  to 
around  900  €/ha,  with  a  particularly  sharp  incr ease  in  2005,  the  year  when  the  Accession 
Treaty  was  signed.  After  accession,  agricultural  land  sales  prices  further  increased  by  more 
than 50% compared to the pre-accession period, to 1400 €/ha in 2008. 

As a result of the above-illustrated increase in land sales prices in Bulgaria and Romania, the 
gap in land prices between these two countries and the EU25 is decreasing. Nonetheless, there 
is still a noticeable difference between the land prices in the EU2 and those in the EU15 (EU 
Member  States  before  1  May  2004).  By  contrast,  land  sales  prices  in  the  EU2  are  now 
comparable to those in EU712. 

However, bearing in mind that rental markets are open to foreigners in both the EU2, it should 
be noted that the convergence in rental prices after accession was not more pronounced than 
that  in  land  sales  prices.  This  phenomenon  could  be  taken  as  an  indicator  that  renting 

10 
11 

12 

See table 4 on page 20 of the CEPS study 2010. 
In  Bulgaria,  where  land  renting  is  much  more  important  than  in  Romania,  the  post-accession  rental 
price in 2008 was only 17% higher than the pre-accession rental price in 2006. 
See figure 11 and table 17 on pages 43-44 of the CEPS study 2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
agricultural land without a possibility of combining it with the acquisition of land needed for 
agricultural activities is only of limited attraction to foreign investors. 

Socio-economic structure of the agricultural sector 

The on-going transformation process of the agricultural sector in the EU2 is already showing 
positive results. The available data reveal that in 2008, wheat yields in Bulgaria amounted to 
70% of the EU25 level and yields in Romania were around 60% of the EU25 level. The gap in 
labour  productivity  between  the  EU2  and  the  EU25  is  also  diminishing  although  large 
differences  still  persist.  In  2008,  the  share  of  value  added  per  agricultural  labour  input  in 
Romania was around 45% of the EU25 level and in Bulgaria it amounted to 60% of the EU25 
level.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  agricultural  labour  input  has  decreased 
considerably in Bulgaria and Romania (more than 40% from 2000 to 2009)13.  

Furthermore,  while  in  2007  the  share  of  employment  in  the  agricultural  sector  was  18%  in 
Bulgaria and 28% in Romania, it was only 5% in the EU25. The real agricultural income over 
labour input increased from 2000 to 2008 by about 51% in Bulgaria and 68% in Romania.14 
Nevertheless, although differences between the agricultural income in the EU2 and the EU25 
decrease over time, they still remain important. In 2008, agricultural income in Bulgaria was 
half  of  the  level  of  the  EU1515  but  closer  to  the  average  agricultural  income  in  the  EU7. 
However,  agricultural  income  in  Romania  in 2008  was  one  fourth  of  that  in  the  EU15  and, 
while it was comparable to that in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, it was still below the average 
agricultural income in EU7.16 

6. Conclusions 

The development of the agricultural sector in Bulgaria and Romania, in particular, enhanced 
agricultural  production,  improved productivity,  increased  agricultural  income  and  land  sales 
prices,  shows  that,  although  still  present,  differences  between  the  EU2  and  the  EU25  are 
clearly  diminishing  over  time.  Therefore,  the  concerns  expressed  during  the  accession 
negotiations, notably that the relatively lower income and land prices in the EU2 compared to 
the EU25 would lead to widespread acquisition of land by foreigners if temporary restrictions 
on foreign investments in the agricultural sector were not in place, seem now, three years after 
accession, to be still valid, but only to a certain extent.  

The analysis of the present situation in the agricultural sector in Bulgaria and Romania shows 
that  the  restrictions  do  not  amount  to  a  total  and  strict  ban  on  foreign  investments  in 
agricultural  land.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  institutional  factors  that  slow  down,  to  some 
degree,  the  progressing  agricultural  structural  reform  in  the  EU2.  Among  these  factors  are 
imperfections  in  the  capital  markets,  land  fragmentation  and  high  transaction  costs.  It  thus 
seems  that  the  objectives  pursued  by  the  temporary  restrictions,  i.e.  the  softening  of  the 
impact of an open market for agricultural real estate in the EU2, could be better achieved if, 
during the transitional period, local farmers could also have an unimpeded access to capital. 
This  would  allow  them  to  consolidate  their  land,  invest  in  technology,  improve  their 
productivity  and  would,  as  a  consequence,  lead  to  increased  agricultural  income  and  land 
prices. However, in the situation of capital market imperfections, partly due to the financial 
crisis,  fresh  capital  is  desperately  needed  for  further  facilitating  and  stimulating  the 

13 
14 

15 
16 

Source: Eurostat (Economic Accounts for Agriculture, Agricultural Labour Input Statistics).  
According to indicator A of the income from agricultural activity (source: Eurostat, Economic Accounts 
for Agriculture).  
In Purchase Power Standard. 
See figure 18 on page 54 of the CEPS study 2010. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
development  of  the  agricultural  sector  in  EU2.  Therefore,  the  opening  of  those  markets  to 
foreign investments through moderate measures even before expiry of the transitional periods 
for ensuring the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in the EU2 merits serious thought. 

In  the  context  of  the  above  proposal,  consideration  might  be  given  to  introducing  the 
following, albeit moderate, reforms: 

•  allowing EU foreigners, not established in EU2, to freely acquire a certain amount of the 

country's agricultural area; 

•  allowing  EU  foreigners,  not  established  in  EU2,  to  freely  acquire  a  certain  amount  of 
farmland, up to a specified maximum amount per transaction, possibly combined in each 
transaction  with  a  requirement  for  certain  investments  in  technological  innovation  to  be 
made; 

•  permitting EU foreigners not established in EU2 but renting agricultural properties there to 

freely acquire farm buildings and the land on which they are built. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  considerable  foreign  presence  in  the  Bulgarian  and 
Romanian agricultural market already exists through legal entities established in the EU2 and 
operating  with  foreign  capital,  foreigners  renting  agricultural  land  without  restrictions,  and 
self-employed  EU  farmers  residing  in  the  EU2.  Land  acquisition  by  these  EU  investors  has 
not led to any visible shocks to the system. Their economic activities could even been seen as 
helping to resolve systemic failures connected to lingering institutional problems that hinder 
the more efficient use of farmland and so agricultural productivity. Furthermore, great shocks 
from massive takeovers of land after the end of the transitional period would similarly seem 
unlikely  since  future  investors  are  likely  to  be  those  who  are,  in  principle,  interested  in  the 
EU2 agricultural market but not to the extent that they needed to already establish themselves 
there  during  the  transitional  period  and  to  acquire  already  now  farmland  at  an  even  lower 
earlier price. In addition, the development of prices in the already unrestricted rental market 
also seems to indicate that, even after the end of the transitional period, the gradual movement 
of land sales prices to the EU25 degree of convergence could continue. Foreign investors are 
expected to combine their activities of purchasing and renting of agricultural land. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Given  the  deadlines  established  in  the  Accession  Treaty  of  2005  for  the  preparation  of  this 
report,  the  period  studied17  is  too  short  to  have  more  extensive  empirical  evidence  on  the 
impact of accession and temporary restrictions on the development of the agricultural market 
in the EU2. Nevertheless, the Commission study has shown that the gap between the EU2 and 
EU25 in terms of income and land prices, which was amongst the most pronounced concerns 
in these two countries at the time of accession, has declined over recent years but is still well 
short  of  complete  convergence.  Thus,  complete  convergence  would  neither  be  an  expected 
nor  necessary  condition  for  the  termination  of  the  derogations.  The  CEPS  study  2010  has 
further  shown  that  the  EU2  would  be  well  advised  to  put  the  remainder  of  the  transitional 
period to good use in fostering the development in the agricultural sector and preparing for the 
inevitable end of the temporary restrictions. Since foreign investments appear to be conducive 
to  the  process  of  rationalising  farmland  use,  enhancing  productivity,  increasing  the  level  of 
technological  innovation  and  improving  the  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  markets,  it 
seems  appropriate  to  recommend  to  the  EU2  to  consider  measures  for  a  further  opening  of 
their respective agricultural sectors on a voluntary basis. 

Based on the situation in the EU2 in the mid-term review of transitional measures for the 
acquisition of agricultural land, the Commission does not conclude that the time limits for 
application  of  temporary  restrictive  measures  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania  should  be 
shortened.  

17 

Most of the statistics available at the date of adoption of this report refer to data limited to 2008.  

EN 

10 

   EN